February 22, 2012

"This is a spiritual war. And the father of lies has his sights on what you would think the father of lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country — the United States of America... If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age?"

Satan?!!

Now, Santorum's saying pay no attention to that Ruler of Demons, that Prince of the Power of the Air, that Spirit That Now Worketh in the Children of Unbelief, that Dragon, that Tempter, that Beelzebub.

"You know, I'm a person of faith. I believe in good and evil," he told reporters following a rally here. "I think if somehow or another because you're a person of faith you believe in good and evil is a disqualifier for president we're going to have a very small pool of candidates who can run for president."...

"If they want to dig up old speeches of me talking to religious groups, they can go ahead and do so, but I'm going to stay on message and I'm going to talk about things that Americans want to talk about which is creating jobs, making our country more secure, and yeah, taking on the forces around his [sic] world who want to do harm to America, and you bet I will take them on"....

Oddly enough, if I were Satan — and it's Santorum who pushed me into this flight of fancy — that's exactly what I would tell my followers to say if they were challenged about whether I'd set my sights on America. I'd say any references to me are merely colorful ways of expressing the abstraction of evil, and now, let's get back to what everyone really wants to talk about: how to get more jobs, more wealth and material goods, for the the people of America.

ADDED: "... taking on the forces around his world..." Is that a typo or did he say "his"? And if he said "his," who is he?

Speaking of, this was pretty good, and fits in nicely with the previous post as well.

AWOOOGAH!!! Conservatives Start To Sound The Alarm Over Rick Santorum’s ExtremismAs a result, many have started to hit the panic button, and they’re doing so in a way you probably wouldn’t have expected from the GOP, which still counts evangelicals among its strongest and most reliable base vote. ...“In short, Santorum on social issues is not a conservative but a reactionary, seeking to obliterate the national consensus on a range of issues beyond gay marriage and abortion.”...Santorum is putting the entire GOP in danger with his focus on extreme social conservatism, Gingrich said....A wise observer told me years ago that for a politician to be seen as the aggressor in the culture wars is the quickest way to lose them,” the longtime veteran of conservative politics wrote. “That is something Rick Santorum should bear in mind as this race moves forward.”

Yeah, but who brought this up NOW? Santorum? No. Santorum is talking about jobs and the economy. And he answers any question put to him in an open and honest manner. The speech in question was from 2008 when he was no longer a politician, having lost his last election in November 2006.

If you want your politicians to mince their words, obfuscate, and avoid sensitive subjects, vote for some other guy. We get the Hell we deserve.

Santorum is like Buchanan was in 1996. I imagine he is useful for corralling the social conservatives along the path to the Convention and at some point the big money will make sure that Romney is the candidate.

Santorum was speaking -- not at some campaign event or even some political event, as is deceptively implied here -- but at a rather seriously overt Catholic university, Ave Maria University in Florida.

And the substance of his remarks are fairly standard stuff in Catholicism. Just as one might say "God bless America," one might also take note the corrolary of that. Catholics are very much aware that evil exists in the world and that mankind has been tempted by the Evil One ever since that very day when God first said to man, "remember you are dust and unto dust you shall return."

Not only is this the stuff of standard prayer in the Our Father (Lord's Prayer), but also in the prayer to St. Michael (which admittedly is not said as often as it used to be) -- "Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray; and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host - by the Divine Power of God - cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits, who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls."

Rather standard stuff for one Catholic to be talking to a group of Catholics about in a speech that is intended to be about faith.

And it is also rather standard stuff for people to laugh and snark and snicker at such things. But then again, it is quite acceptable to hold anything concerning the faith up to derision and contempt.

How come all of Rev. Wright's hate speeches haven't come out by now? There were hundreds of DVDs for sale, and I'm pretty sure there are a lot worse examples than "Goddamn America" and "Chickens coming home to roost." Now they are not Obama's words but he seemed to agree with them when he sat there and smiled and continued his friendship with Wright.

Santorum is like Buchanan was in 1996. I imagine he is useful for corralling the social conservatives along the path to the Convention and at some point the big money will make sure that Romney is the candidate.

Only if the rubes don't catch on to how the Republicans party thinks about them and uses them.

Nice Bender. I was born and raised a Catholic, and had my daughter educated in a catholic school. Those comments are not standard for most mainstream Catholics today. Those are the rantings of super conservative right wing Catholics. That they were from a speech at Ave Maria is par for their course.

He is a nut job. Especially with those comments about amnio syntesis. Please

Dude is crazy. But since Republicans dislike Romney and think he will lose against Obama, they are in a bit of a pickle.

Actually you and your kind are the batshit nutjobs on this planet. This was a 2008 speech at the ave maria catholic school. He's a catholic. Because in your case, to much penis is pushing your brain in ways that make you dumber than normal. Under what context do you think giving a speech in 2008 like this in a catholic university in Florida is crazy?

A reply by Santorum in aninterview by Greta Van Susteren on 2/21/2012.

The hypocrisy in this case, I think, is pretty obvious and we’re going to stand up and articulate what the truth is, which is, in this case, as in many cases, my personal feelings and personal moral judgments are not those that are going to be reflected in public law, nor should they all the time. Not everything that is immoral in this country should be illegal or should be within the governance of the federal or state government, or any government. (about the 5:00 mark)http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/video/gop-presidential-candidate-rick-santorum-on-the-record-7/

You know, about this religious nut job Santorum, in addition to this speech on faith that he gave to a religious group, there is a pretty reliable rumor out there that each week he goes to some secret meeting where he and the others engage in some kind of sick and twisted faux cannibalism ceremony, where his -- get this, ha, ha -- his "god" is a piece of bread!

I know that baiting Santorum is red meat to liberals, and so, it will continue unabated. That doesn't stop it from being politically a bad idea for Democrats. Here's why:

Catholics, unlike most other American faiths, are evenly split between Ds & Rs. There are a bunch of Democratic Catholic politicians.

Santorum is basically a hard-core believing Catholic. What he believes is what the Church teaches. He's just more vocal about it than is politically common.

So, when people, like our dear Hatman here, attack the Church's teachings publicly, they force liberal Catholic politicians to have to choose sides, a process that ends with either the Catholics or the secular liberals pissed off. Not good for the Democrats, who need every Catholic vote they can get.

Secular liberals hate Catholicism. We know that. Trumpeting it too loudly before a big election is political suicide.

Tactically a bad move to speak of good and evil in a political contest. What Santorum could say, which would be more plausible and less likely to evoke the ridicule of the Althouses of this world, is that his opponent is governing not only against the will of the people but against human nature itself. Since leftists don't believe there is any such thing as human nature, only a blank slate on which to imprint their agenda, and Santorum believes there is a God given human nature, that could be the basis of an enlightening debate.

I'd like to say Ann and I think alike, but clearly she's a lot smarter.

Actually, though, the Church Lady thing had occurred to me as the best metaphor of Santorum's approach. The better way to go at it, however, is the Bing Crosby approach from the song, "Swinging On A Star" - point up how much happier, better people can be if they try it the accepted way.

Andy R. said...

Dude is crazy. But since Republicans dislike Romney and think he will lose against Obama, they are in a bit of a pickle.

Hatman will be crushed to find out Santorum's peaked already. Watch the polls this weekend.

victoria said...

Nice Bender. I was born and raised a Catholic, and had my daughter educated in a catholic school. Those comments are not standard for most mainstream Catholics today. Those are the rantings of super conservative right wing Catholics.

Of course, anyone who disagrees with little Vicki is "super conservative right wing".

Those "mainstream" Catholics she talks about are also known as cafeteria Catholics because they like to pick and choose from the Church's teachings what, if anything, they want to obey.

You know, Andy, you just might want to share your beliefs on the stupidity on the Christian faith with the black community, who vote in 90+ per cent for the Democrats. And, yes, they believe in Satan.

White Democrats believe that their guys get into office without the theocratic vote. That's because, in spite of their protestations to the contrary, white democrats don't understand jack-shit about black people.

Trust me, Hat, you're just as religious as any Godfearing Christian. It's merely that your scriptures are simply the solipsistic mutterings of the self-obsessed who can't see beyond his own animal nature.

"In a way, all of us has an El Guapo to face. For some, shyness might be their El Guapo. For others, a lack of education might be their El Guapo. For us, El Guapo is a big, dangerous man who wants to kill us. But as sure as my name is Lucky Day, the people of Santa Poco can conquer their own personal El Guapo, who also happens to be *the actual* El Guapo! "

To imagine Satan sitting in his war room with his generals plotting ways to bring down America is childish, IMO. That's not what morality is about. I can respect the "struggle between good and evil" but not so much if that's how you think of it.

I am not a religious person, and I am not (yet) a Santorum supporter. But the more that he is the object of smug ridicule for his moral and religious beliefs, the more it seems to me that maybe this is a debate worth having.

The worldview shared by the Andy R's of the nation is that we are not up to the challenge of individual freedom and responsibility. We need the government to provide for our retirement because we lack adequate foresight. We need the government to determine our health-care choices because we are incapable of choosing among various options wisely, or at all. We even need the government to require that third parties buy contraceptives for us!

Santorum believes none of this. I'm beginning to think that this is why he is perceived as dangerous.

He was on BookTV last night from an original appearance in 2005. He talked about the family, and some other issues, and I thought: where's he been: he's the only candidate that has made any sense at all so far.

"... The worldview shared by the Andy R's of the nation is that we are not up to the challenge of individual freedom and responsibility..."

Sure. This is the textbook definition of contemporary liberalism. It takes a village and all that. And to a certain extent they're right. There is a segment of every population that is really too stupid to survive without a social safety net.

Now a classical liberal would try to make that net as small as possible but contemporary liberals want to extend that dependency as wide as possible because having dependents is power. Individualism is the biggest threat to liberals because those people have no use for them.

On the other hand liberals need the self reliant, productive independents as the cash cow to support their power base.

From a Christian theological perspective, Satan (real or metaphorical -- you choose; but note that some absurd number of Americans believe in angels and 'Satan and his minions' as the saying goes are fallen angels) received power to rule the earth at the Fall; which Christ won back on the Cross but we are now in a working out of that victory. What Santorum said, is not at all outside of Christian doctrine.

No. The so-called "social" issues that he remarks on are actually derivative of the two objective orders in our world: natural (i.e. evolutionary) and enlightened (i.e. conscious). The first is principally concerned with procreation and evolutionary fitness. The second is axiomatic and is the justification for assigning individual dignity to individual humans. The goal is to identify and promote a reasonable compromise between the two known orders.

This is only "religious" in the sense that there exists a correlation between the two known orders and the principles espoused by the faith embraced by Christianity and similar religions. There is no conflict between the two perceptions of reality. In fact, the religious faith is principally concerned with judgment in the post-mortem, and is entirely compatible with the objective faith (i.e. constrained to a limited frame of reference).

The source of corruption in this world, that which could essentially be described as "evil", is dreams of instant physical, material, and ego instant gratification, principally through redistributive and retributive change, but also through fraudulent and opportunistic exploitation, in a world of resources with limited availability and accessibility. It is people and cooperatives that denigrate individual dignity and devalue human life that sponsor this progressive corruption of individuals, society, and humanity.

Saying over and over that Satan does not exist is one way to deal with the personal evil that is seldom encountered in our Judeo-Christian communities, mainly because people here do not seek him out(Except maybe for the popular hero, Harry Potter.)

But don't tell Africans or Hatians that a personal evil does not exist or they will laugh at you. In those places most people still go to Witch Doctors to get help from Satan by paying for curses on others or, to break the curses others sought out from his priest.

I do agree that the best strategy is to ignore Satan, since he usually uses false flag operations here.

Christians were warned by Red Letter scripture not to fall for such deceptions from the Father of Lies, and that includes never attacking people, because our enemy is not flesh and blood.

The proliferation of classical liberalism was the renaissance of individual dignity. Its contemporary doppelganger and its "progressive" variant have demonstrated an enduring distrust of individuals, their motives, and ability to self-moderate their behavior (the prerequisite for liberty). The "liberal" and "progressive" are predisposed to defer to alphas (or mortal gods) in order to realize their dreams of instant gratification. They prefer involuntary exploitation because they distrust other people and seek to marginalize their influence while elevating their own.

"On the other hand liberals need the self reliant, productive independents as the cash cow to support their power base."

And this independent voter, and her husband, are more disturbed by today's so-called liberals who cannot abide the existence of people they disagree with, than by the fact that Catholics and Mormons believe in things that we do not.

if you assume that diatribes against the Devil are primarily a White-Religious-and-Conservative thing, I encourage you to visit a Black church.

@Ann,"How can we be sure that you are not [the Devil]?"

Would I put the possibility right in front of you?

I will mention that, according to C.S. Lewis, the smartest thing the Devil ever did was to convince humans that he didn't exist.

(This can be found in The Screwtape Letters, which is one of Lewis' shortest books.)

Not that I believe you to be the Devil. For one thing, if the Evil One manifested himself in this world, he would "seem fairer and feel fouler" than you. (To quote a character from one of JRR Tolkien's works.)

Santorum lectures about Satan but he proposes that using dogs to terrorize prisoners; stripping detainees naked and hooding them; freezing prisoners to near-death and reviving them and repeating the hypothermia; contorting prisoners into stress positions that create unbearable pain in the muscles and joints; cramming prisoners into upright coffins in painful positions with minimal air; near-drowning, on a waterboard, of human beings—in one case 183 times—even after they have cooperated with interrogators...is ok.

And what you describe has stopped under Obama? Leon Pannetta has come out at least once in favor of "enhanced interrogation".

In any case, let's pretend we don't do that anymore. We don't take prisoners at all. We blow them and their entourages into pieces. And, of course, our terrorists foes are nice enough not to travel with any wives or children, right?

"And this independent voter, and her husband, are more disturbed by today's so-called liberals who cannot abide the existence of people they disagree with, than by the fact that Catholics and Mormons believe in things that we do not."

No kidding. I'm an atheist, but I'll take the religous over AndyR any day.

Yes I am. But what matters is that I am a sapient being with self-awareness and a hatful of other qualities beyond just "feeling" and responding to stimuli.

That Star Trek NG writer who wrote the episode even said that "sentient" was a placeholder for "sapient"--a word hhe could not think of when he was writing the episode quickly, away from his thesaurus. Patrick Stewart's three-sylable pronunciation of "sentient" made the director keep that take, saying that he didn't really care what the right word was.

machine cranked out:Santorum lectures about Satan but he proposes that using dogs to terrorize prisoners; stripping detainees naked and hooding them; freezing prisoners to near-death and reviving them and repeating the hypothermia; contorting prisoners into stress positions that create unbearable pain in the muscles and joints; cramming prisoners into upright coffins in painful positions with minimal air; near-drowning, on a waterboard, of human beings—in one case 183 times—even after they have cooperated with interrogators...is ok.

"The worldview shared by the Andy R's of the nation is that we are not up to the challenge of individual freedom and responsibility. We need the government to ...

Santorum believes none of this. I'm beginning to think that this is why he is perceived as dangerous."

Chip: If you really believe in "individual liberty," Santorum is so not your guy. He has explicitly denounced the individual freedom as a societal ideal.

"This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture."

The only difference between Santorum and Obama is that they want the government to regulate different things. THAT is why he is viewed as dangerous.

"This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture."

Will the real Republican Party please stand up?

I think in this case Rick at least puts his finger on the schism of the right today. That radical individualism is a very different conception of conservatism than Santorum's scriptural interpretation.

I think they're both inadequate but it seems to me that's the discussion that's really worth having, that's the culture war that's worth engaging in.

@DDDriver, If I find any reason to believe that Santorum wants to enforce the full range of his moral views through legislation or executive order, I'll be strongly opposed.

I do believe strongly in individual freedom, but I do not believe that freedom entails indifference to the moral sphere. So I don't object to a candidate simply b/c he or she acknowledges that. In the particular case of Santorum, I don't know the full context of the quote you've posted. It may have been something relatively harmless, such as public displays of Christmas decorations, or he may have been advocating the mandatory teaching of Catholic doctrine in public schools. Specifics matter.

Althouse has in the past dismissed arguments about the superiority of private charity to a welfare state as a mere "conservative meme," but I happen to think it is an essential point in the overall debate. That means that morality, ethics, and liberty aren't easily separable.

Santorum creeps me the eff out and I really, really, really hope he doesn't get the GOP nomination. But not because of this quote.

Plenty of other truly cringeworthy Santorum quotes, which I personally find objectionable. Especially coming from someone who seeks to be POTUS.

E.g. on the topics of individual freedom and libertarianism (he's not a fan). Or Santorum's predominant, even obsessive focus, throughout his public and political career, on topics of sexual morality-- e.g. the moral evils of contraception and sodomy-- as "important public policy" issues, and his stated intention to be the first President ever to "talk about" these things-- in his role *as President*.

The only time I want to hear the word "sodomy" coming from a POTUS is if he's caught singing along to the Hair soundtrack.

Of course, much of the liberal mocking of Santorum's faith is disgusting. But being the object of unfair liberal mockery is not by itself a qualification for the presidency.

(Conservatives sometimes tend to overvalue this-- being the object of liberal ridicule-- as if that by itself were proof of intrinsic virtue and merit. Cf. the apotheosis of Palin. Don't get me wrong, this is a very human and understandable and in a way commendable reaction. But I wouldn't make that my primary criterion in picking a POTUS nominee.)

And NB: one may very well mock or object to Santorum's statements and his very *particular* brand of social conservatism, characteristic of Santorum and Santorum alone-- especially insofar as he is a candidate for *POTUS*-- without mocking or objecting to religion or social conservatism themselves or as a whole.

Charging all of Santorum's critics and detractors with anti-religious bigotry makes only a bit more sense than charging all of Obama's critics and detractors with racism. Which is to say, not much sense at all.

Santorum's social conservatism is nothing like GWB's, for example. I was very fond of GWB and felt no qualms whatsoever about his faith (in fact, I largely considered this to be a positive quality of GWB's). I can't say the same about Santorum.

We're not (yet) choosing between Santorum and Obama. If it gets to that, we'll get to that. We're choosing among the GOP primary candidates. You don't have to convince me that Obama (especially a second term of Obama) is or would be worse than Santorum.

Of course, IMO, to pick Santorum is to guarantee Obama's re-election. But I'm trying to avoid "electability" arguments, which distract from the more fundamental point. Leaving aside whether Santorum is electable; IMO he's just not qualified to be POTUS.

Obama wasn't qualified either, you say? The deuce you say!

My response: yes, exactly. Just so. Why in the world would I (or the general electorate) want another POTUS as patently inexperienced and unqualified for the Presidency as Obama was in 2008?

@yashu--Your points are all well-taken, but I join chickenlittle's dissent from your take on Palin.

I think you're overlooking one essential aspect to the choice among candidates: credibility. Zealots have an easy time convincing people of the sincerity of their views; pragmatists do not. Palin's appeal was in large part due to conservatives' absolute faith in her sincerity.

The question that is most critical to my choice of candidate is simply this: Who will be most dedicated to--and most effective in achieving--the repeal of Obamacare and the reform of entitlement programs?

If Romney could convince voters that he was the answer to both parts of that question, then I think he would win both the nomination and the general election handily. But clearly he hasn't managed to do that--yet.

This is an interesting inkblot test going on here. Let's just say Obama (professed Christian that he is) was cornered in an interview and asked if he believed (as most Christians in the world do) in a personified evil force in the world. Anyone who thinks he'd say "no" outright is fooling themselves. He'd either triangulate (ie., not answer the question, the most likely answer), or offer a qualified "yes."

What distinguishes Santorum and Obama on this is not the answer. It's that Obama's supporters would immediately think he's lying for political gain--and they wouldn't care at all that he did so. Santorum's supporters (of which I''m not one) know he's telling the truth--and they don't care.

It's the same on any number of issues. You can't tell me that it's a good thing that so many are comfortable thinking their candidate is lying and not care. However odd you may find Santorum's religion, this situation reveals a very deep sickness in our politics. It may be old rot, but it's still rot.

That's so odd because if someone were to ask me why I admired Palin I'd say it's because she's down to earth.

Of course you and Cedarford would mock that view everytime.

There's a lot about Palin that is admirable. And I didn't say anything negative or mocking about *her* in my comment. My point was that, after the patently unfair MSM/ liberal treatment she received, many of her supporters developed a counter-overreaction (or over-counterreaction?), IMO. So even the mildest criticism of Palin is considered anathema. And IMO she has been apotheosized by many (not all, but a number) of her supporters. Who are as fervent about her as many Obamaphiles were about Obama.

I'm not saying Palin herself is responsible for that. Let's say I'm agnostic on that point.

The problem being that there hasn't been much criticism in the media of Palin that qualifies as merely "mild." The media has a tendency to turn every criticism of her up to eleven, partly because she's such a ratings draw.

ERN, that is true, absolutely. Which is why the reaction-- the admiration, affection, and loyalty Palin has garnered from many conservatives-- is so understandable. But the result is that everything about Palin-- both con and pro-- is turned up to eleven.

Chip @2:08, I agree that's the sticking point for many conservatives toward Romney. Romney has convinced *me* he's serious about repealing Obamacare. He states this unequivocally in every speech. But others are not yet convinced.

Romneycare's the rub. I don't have a problem separating Obamacare and Romneycare (especially given how "Romneycare" actually came about, in the context of MA politics and especially a MA legislature intent on implementing an insurance mandate, irrespective of Romney-- and a *much* worse one if Romney hadn't intervened).

States rights are an important principle for me: which is a big part of why Obamacare is such an abomination, and why Romneycare (though I consider it a bad, badly flawed thing) is not such an object of outrage for me. (I might feel differently if I lived in MA.)

But many conservatives just won't be appeased unless and until Romney offers a full-throated denunciation of Romneycare. Why not disavow it by e.g. blaming the MA legislature for it? That would seem like the politically smart thing to do at this point.

I speculate that Romney's refusal to do so has nothing to do with an ideological or political attachment to the idea of health insurance mandates, but rather something like an ex-governor's etiquette/ honor/ loyalty to the state he governed. To diss Romneycare (i.e. MA health care) would be in a way to diss MA, the citizens of MA-- the majority of whom wanted and still want such a system for themselves. In a way it would be to say that the citizens of MA are clueless, misguided, and don't know what's good for them. (Cf. Obama's attitude toward American citizens.)

It's like a guy who's discreet and won't publicly diss his ex-wife because, after all, she's the mother of his children. Doesn't mean the guy is bound to make the same mistakes if/ when he marries again-- especially when those mistakes were largely due to the first wife and not him.

I know, this is a charitable interpretation, which I come up with only because I happen to like Romney (more than the other candidates, to be the nominee).

The error of the premise is at the failure to distinguish between Satan and Beelzebub. They are not combined as summary of planetary evil. Satan is a local universe intelligence. Beelzebub is a planetary personality.

Lucifer Satan Caligastia AbaddonDaligastia Beelzebub

If this Santorum fellow you guys found does not do any better at sorting these celestial and planetary intelligences then I will not be able to pay him any attention. He'll have no devilish Satan clarification to offer. He must attack directly the tenets of the Lucifer Manifesto and show how its adherents pursue a rebellion without knowing even as that rebellion is already isolated and withers, to show that he knows what he's on about, but he doesn't, and he won't because he isn't. If Republicans elect Santorum then I will not pay attention to any devil-related thing he says unless he goes in comic mode like the Church Lady.

Although the Church Lady is very funny character, so far, Santorum is not. In interviews, he sounds punch drunk to me. The guy is asked a simple question and you get all this swinging in the air string of answers without any naturally occurring space between them. Like he has to get it all out, and get it out fast, in every single flawlessly rapid staccato answer. I give him a go, I do try, but the arm reaches for the remote independently and sees to it the ears stay protected.

I wonder, for the likes of him, will it ever be possible to have a normal conversation after running a presidential campaign?

"The guy is asked a simple question and you get all this swinging in the air string of answers without any naturally occurring space between them. Like he has to get it all out, and get it out fast, in every single flawlessly rapid staccato answer."

Probably an attempt to fluster those parsing every statement for an extractable damning soundbite. But if he doesn't know Satan's proper place in the pantheon of evil, Lord knows he doesn't have prayer with the more pressing issues of the day.

Palin's appeal was in large part due to conservatives' absolute faith in her sincerity.

I agreed with her on frickin' everything. But aside from that, she's funny. She has a populist appeal. The way she would talk to union voters and go after that vote. Her charm. Her persona. Her sex appeal. The way she could frame a debate and reduce an idea to a slogan. Death panels.

We couldn't get enough of her. She would just throw up some comment on facebook and the media would go crazy.

She's a natural.

Liberals were terrified of her. Absolutely frickin' terrified.

I do not get the sense that anybody on the left is terrified of Santorum. Laughing at him, yes. Terrified? No.

I was frankly shocked when she decided not to run, which I guess was family considerations.

I'm a social liberal myself, if we can ignore Obama's years as a member of a church whose minister condemned America openly and proudly (and it's ok), why can't conservatives listen to Santorum complain about America being condemned (and it's NOT ok)?

It's this double standard that gets Fox News more watchers and Rush more listeners; no one gets balance so they have to go to extremes and guess for themselves

remember way, way back...say, about a month ago...when republicans were talking about lower taxes, smaller government, the national debt, individual liberty and other crazy things like that? thank goodness we've moved on to the really important stuff like condoms and satan ! go rick !

Sabinal said...I'm a social liberal myself, if we can ignore Obama's years as a member of a church whose minister condemned America openly and proudly (and it's ok), why can't conservatives listen to Santorum complain about America being condemned (and it's NOT ok)?

The discussion of Satan occurred at a lecture to a Catholic audience at a Catholic university in 2008 (or was it 2010?). Not on the campaign trail.

The only quote I could find on banning condoms was a question from an ABC News reporter on whether states had the right to ban contraceptives, which he thought they did. He didn't bring it up. The ABC News guy did.

The quote I found was on the social impact of contraceptives was from 2010, also not on the campaign trail.

Santorum has not brought any of this up on the trail. It has been resurrected by a compliant media, and a lie repeated either knowingly or unknowingly by you.

If you'd like to hear a good reason why Republicans rally around Santorum's often harsh moral clarity, just take a listen to this from a show on the local NPR affiliate WAMU.

At around minute 5 to minute 6, you get to hear one of the ladies compare the moral seriousness of abortion to the moral weight of masturbation. And of course, the other four ladies guffaw heartily. Because, of course, conservatives are against abortion to oppress women, not because they think it's murder.

People might have a difference of belief as to the existence of Heaven, but even the most strident atheist and antitheist must necessarily admit to the existence of Hell. That is because Hell does not depend upon the existence of God.

"Hell" is, by definition, eternal separation from God (CCC 1035), while "Heaven" is to be one with and in God, who is Life itself (CCC 1025). Even if God does not exist, then it is necessarily impossible for one to be with Him after worldly death. And if you are not or cannot be with Him, then you are necessarily in Hell.

1. There is a God (or at least if you profess belief in God it's ok, even if you might mean it.)

2. Keep as far away from the Christ thing as you can. Son of God, virgin birth, resurrection, that's all so very unscientific and fantastical.

3. If you must go to church, don't try to recruit others very hard. Too evangelical (and Mormon.)

4. Speaking of Mormons angels walking among us in the 21st century is totally wacko.

5. Black churches are exempt from any of the foregoing criticisms. (The blacks are such children, you see, that they really believe this stuff and its because they were and are and ever shall be oppressed and in need of government programs.)

6. All talk of the devil being incarnate is totally ridiculous and anyone who believes in such a thing is completely irrational except insofar as such beliefs extend to successful conservative capitalists and politicians.

So, Santorum says the Devil is out to thet the US of A. Tell me, what country isn't on Old Nick's hit list? Vanuatu?

But seriously folks...Santorum is on the same page with conservative/libertarian atheists more than most people realize. Conservatives and libertarians of all stripes share a lot of common ground regarding policy, and thus share a lot of common ground as to what constitutes evil. All those factions agree that the United States has the largest aggregate of freedom among all the world's nations, and is thus opposed by evil more than any other nation is. Santorum and atheists simply disagree on who evil's Commander-in-Chief happens to be.